No Satire, Please, We're Philanthropists

Ian Wilhelm at Give and Take, the blog for The Chronicle of Philanthropy: the Newspaper of the Non-Profit World, on a recent flap:

After less than a month, a blog that made fun of the nonprofit world and gender roles has shut down. Men in Philanthropy, which promised to recognize “the vast, marginally relevant, contributions men have made to the world of philanthropy” has been “removed,” according to its Web site host. While some said the site was in poor taste — one commenter on Give & Take called it “insulting and stupid” — Phil Cubeta, author of Gift Hub, writes that the short-lived effort brought some badly needed laughs to philanthropy. “Another fine satiric site goes dark,” he writes. What do you think? Do we need some blogs poking fun at philanthropy?

Taking a cue from Ian, I decided, rather than hazarding an opinion of my own (and so exposing myself to potential criticism from my boss, funder, or readers), I would simply ask a question. So, I consulted Senator Dick Minim (D. MA), a former Board Member for the Council on Foundations, and asked how he felt about "some blogs poking fun at philanthropy." He said, twirling his pinz nez on its gold chain, "Why, Phil, you know that laughing folly into good humor and good sense is a most unsporting proposition; a gentlemen just knows not to do that. Why consider the effect on poor Mummy. She almost choked on her crumpet. The last time people tried satire, in England, I believe it was, in the Augustan period, look what it led to. A Revolution here in Colonies. And it has been quite downhill ever since."

Comments

[The Dukes of Moral Hazard]

This is all fuzzing together for me. The Miss Nude Miami and the brunette with the big degrees swishing her fine mane especially. Stacked scorecards.

I guess keeeping this stuff straight is what separates the prose from the tyros. My hat's off to you. Whatever.

[Boss Hogg]

Hoggs get fat... as a matter of fact, Piggs do also.

[Phil]

Thanks, you are indeed getting the picture. My true question is whether if we do open the conversation of philanthropy up to a different decorum (satire, humor, the Carnivalesque) will we then see things and be able to discuss things that we today cannot see, or cannot discuss? Satire has proven over the history of empires, from Rome, to Augustan England to Necon America, the best, most fitting, and most effective way to open up for discussion the actions by our superiors and peers that might otherwise be taboo to discuss. You can see in this thing about the Men in Philanthropy site, how taboos work, how they are enforced, and the awkward silences, elisions, and wounds that are left. I say, enough! Satire is strong medicine, but then again the patient, the body politic, the current state of philanthropy, deserve our best shot. Emetics, clysters, bleeding, leeches, mustard plaster, the red hot iron to raise blisters, the lancet, the trepan drill, strong stimulants - the entire ancient pharmacopia. If we happen to use laughing gas, they (the patients under our care) should thank us. In Rome they just tied the patient down, in preparation for surgery, or stuck a rag in the patient's mouth. Philanthropy needs a good a laugh, since otherwise the operation upon its Vanity and Pride would be quite painful.